chaz wyman wrote:
Ron de Weijze wrote:
I first learned to "see" cultural history when I read Van den Berg
. It turns out to have been the first book in social psychology before I knew I was going to study that. We may have psychoses or neuroses, but Van den Berg teaches, and I believe he is right, that we all have socioses first. That is how communities cannot adequately respond to changes in their socio-cultural environment and start to develop workarounds, which is how much of politics is formed but it can also kick back at a more personal level, especially when culture is really changing. One example is how mental health stabilising ideas such as God, Truth, self and reality all were relativized and nihilized into anarchism and atheism by the Hippies to have their lives their way, but polluting others' lives with it in the mean time.
I often find your posts puzzling. You run along quite nicely and then all of a sudden you throw in a wild card.
 Do you think this: "all were relativized and nihilized into anarchism and atheism by the Hippies to have their lives their way, but polluting others' lives with it," is remotely justifiable?
 There is so much wrong with this statement it is really hard to know were to start.
[a] First there is the fact that you have decided to deed "hippies" as a group with an intent to do harm to others. As if they spoke with one voice.
[b] Then there is the underlying assumption that things were okay with everyone's mental health before the hippies came along. As if the hippies had come from another planet and were not challenging social neuroses of their own society
from which they actually emerged and were part of. This seems the most crass case of 'othering', I have seen in a long while on this Forum.
[c] Worst still it is as if they had by wanting to live their own lives, upset everybody else and 'pollute' them - how exactly? It's not as if they had some power to indoctrinate their parents generation.
[d] But more than that still, Hippies marked a significant revival in Religion and particular reverence of Jesus of Nazareth. If it is possible to talk in generalities about Hippies - they marked an increase in spirituality and rejected atheism. They did not relativize nor nihilise (whatever you think that means) God and Truth - they embraced them.
 I feel it has not been very long yet, that I left the context of discovery to enter that of justification. Hippies went for postmodernism, known for relativizing and nihilizing (Heidegger, Sartre, Foucault, Ricoeur, Irigary, Baudrillard, Levinas, Derrida, Lyotard, Kristeva). Derrida stepped into the spotlights with his deconstructionism. I get sick and tired when I read
how he did it and when I tell the author, his initial confirmation turns into rejection, revolving around our interpretation of Bergson.
[2a] Hippies did not want to do harm to others the way inmates always are all innocent in here
. That doesn't mean inmates cannot really be innocent.
[2b] I did not say nor assume that either. You read your own assumptions into other's submissions, objectify and object to them in the crassest of your words.
NO you actually said it pretty plainly.
[2c] Obviously you were not living in Amsterdam in the 60s. There was no park where you wouldn't stumble over the sleeping bags.
No - I was living in Swinging London where it all began.
[2d] If crack was divine, Hippies were devout, sure.